Articles Tagged: lawyers

Jason Karimi of weedpress.wordpress.com has an ever changing story

October 7th, 2012 | By Pirate

Over a year has passed since my interview with Jason Karimi.  I find his changing blog story funny.

Reference to the show:

http://xcannabis.com/xtube/audio/15/interview-with-jason-karimi-about-rescheduling-c

http://xcannabis.com/2011/06/to-reschedule-or-not-to-unschedule-cannabis-todays-show/

 

Now on his blog at:  http://weedpress.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/questions-for-sensible-washingtons-ryan-thompson-where-does-he-stand-on-rescheduling-and-why/

 

He says a few things that he has never said before regarding our conversation.  Must be a recent edit on his page.

Just to keep these ever changing questions answered.  And I don’t care if he doesn’t want me to elaborate, that is why Im posting in my box, not his.  I’ll elaborate until the cows come home, like it or not.

Also you can get different historical archives from my blog and possibly Jason’s blog at:  http://archive.org


UPDATE 8-7: Ryan Thompson is not officially with Sensible Washington. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Jason Says:  Recently, I agreed to debate Chris Bennett and Ryan Thompson on Sensi Life Radio. However, XCannabis Ryan Thompson did not debate me like promised; instead, he “interviewed” me. Since that show, we have had some very heated discussions over this very important strategy: rescheduling/descheduling marijuana!

Response from Ryan:  In the entire time leading up to, and not once during the interview was the name “Chris Bennett” ever mentions. 

As for what Jason says about “Ryan Thompson did not debate me as promised”.

I gave Jason an hour to ask me questions or comment on my position.  When he asked me tough questions like “would you still have voted no again something like prop19 if the tax structure didn’t exist”.  When my answer was “I supported Prop19 with only few reservations, but I did support it”.  That seemed to derail his “debate”.

Jason said:  I am fed up with his rambling. He spams illogical information, and it’s hard for me to even make sense of it. As a result, I have asked him to answer these simple questions, most of which I have never asked him before.

If he cannot answer these questions, then I do not trust him, nor his opinion, nor his motives. If he cannot answer these questions, then he is not trying to understand the issue.

Ryan’s response:  Jason, I gave you hours of my time.  Both on facebook in conversations, and on my radio show where you had every opportunity to ask me anything you liked.  Its not my fault that you didn’t write your questions down BEFORE THE SHOW.  So I will be polite and do YOUR RESEARCH for you.  If you or anyone else is interested in my opinion, in an uneditable format (see my video blogs can’t be edited like the text in your blog). 

See my unedited time/date stamped videos at:  

http://youtube.com/xcannabiscom

http://www.dailymotion.com/xcannabis

 

Jason says:  This is a very complex issue. I believe what is happening here is this: Ryan Thompson thought rescheduling was a good idea, until he heard it was a conspiracy….and then, his mind asploded.

Ryan’s response: It was that I learned that there were hundreds of patents on cannabis, and the next step in handing cannabis to big pharma was to reschedule (rather than deschedule) cannabis.  I think that the case of Timothy Leary VS. the USA is one very key point to this topic.  In 1969 Leary got cannabis legalized 100% in this country.  He challenged the constitutionality of this drug war, and won his case.

Jason says:  Logical consistency is key. Ryan Thompson is missing some information in forming his opinion; I am attempting to show him the missing information. Before I show him the missing information, I need to lead him down my thought path, based on my understanding. As such, I need to know where he stands on the following questions. I have asked him to keep Matt 24:4 in mind: “Jesus said, “Let no man deceive you.”

From our Facebook discussion:

Rather than you rambling, i would like you to pretend you’re in class. If you play along, you’ll quit confusing my stance. This assignment is worth 10 points. You may only answer “yes” or “no.” DO NOT ELABORATE. Let’s just break this down.

I am not trying to spit in your face or prove I am right. I am trying to reach an understanding. I will not stop debating you until you and I agree on what direction we should go with this strategy. Please bare with me; this is important, and you MUST make the effort in order for me to respect your opinion. You may end up changing my mind.

“I don’t know” is a valid answer if you can’t answer yes/no.

1. Would you like to see current medical marijuana laws abolished? YES/NO (don’t elaborate; if you answer yes, disregard the future questions)

Our radio show was in June 2011, I made this video in February 2012:

“All cannabis use is medical use?” Until the government steals our crops!

 

I also made this list before our interview and shared it with you a few times:

http://xcannabis.com/patents-on-cannabis/

Here is a long list of articles that I have written on the subject.

http://xcannabis.com/?s=reschedule&x=0&y=0#ixzz1MtHSgfmQ

And I answered your question on the radio.  I am a MMJ patient.

 

Jason asks:  2. Do you agree with marijuana extracts such as Marinol or Sativex can be placed in Schedule III and sold, while leaving natural marijuana in Schedule I? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s answer: Yes, I believe big pharma is trying to corner the market on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaJe1f0Ew0Y&feature=plcp

Jason asks: 3. Do you agree with Paul Armentano that “Ultimately rescheduling is a good thing?” YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s response:  NO, Although there was a time I did, in fact I had a petition going to make this point in 2009.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/marijuana-cannabis-decriminalization/

I made this video on that topic in July a month  before our radio show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHk4FQT_Xo

Jason asks: 4. Do you agree with Paul Armentano that ““The DEA’s intent is to expand the federal government’s schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself.” YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s response:  Yes, this is my point.  The plant is practically being given to big pharma.  In fact I spoke to you about this on my radio show with you.  I pointed this issue out to you about how the DEA is ALREADY trying to reschedule cannabis.  They don’t need your help has been my point all along.    See my blog from February 2011 (long before our interview)  X Cannabis – Medical cannabis only vs. Full legalization

Jason asks:  5. Should Oregon petition the federal government to remove marijuana from Schedule I? YES/NO (don’t elaborate) 

Ryan’s answer:  It is great news that one state (Oregon) has rescheduled cannabis for medical use.  That means Federal Schedule I is invalidated, since there IS recognized medical use in the USA.  We spoke about this on the show Jason.

But this has to be done carefully.  Its not enough to simply ask politely to reschedule.  It is much more helpful and less risky to just demand cannabis be unscheduled.  Rescheduling means that big pharma would be the only companies that could afford the research and testing process to get FDA approval etc, under any other schedule that makes cannabis legal to distribute.  It would only be licensed pharmacists that could sell it.  Like I said on the show, do you know of any drugs that are in schedule II-V that can be manufactured by anyone but big pharma, and sold by licensed pharmacists? 

He never did answer that.  They need to do what Timothy Leary did, and demand cannabis be un-prohibited.  Thats the end of the story as far as Im concerned.

Jason asks: 6. Should Oregon join the Cannabis Rescheduling Coalition case currently underway? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan replies:  Cannabis should not be scheduled, so I don’t agree with RE-scheduling cannabis, only UN-scheduling cannabis.

Jason asks:  7. Did the US Supreme Court tell Angel Raich to work on removing marijuana from Schedule I? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s reply:  LOL, don’t care.  Cannabis should not be scheduled.  I don’t care what the government told someone to do.

Jason asks:  8. Did the US Supreme Court rule in Gonzalez v Oregon (2006) that state medical laws cannot be interfered with by the Federal Government? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s reply:  Cannabis is not really a constitutional prohibition.  There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government authority to prohibit what people decide to put in their own body.  Like the title of my blog says “Freedom Can’t Exist If Nature Is Illegal”.  

So if cannabis prohibition is not constitutional, like alcohol prohibition was.  Then the law is wrong, not the so-called law breakers.

Jason asks:  9. Do you understand that, no matter what “remedy” a petitioner asks for (such as Oregon, for example), the court is not obligated to grant that remedy? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan responds:  Yes, of course.  But why ask for something you don’t want.  If you REALLY want cannabis “unscheduled”, why ask for it to be “RE-scheduled”?  I asked that on the show both with you and Carl.  They may not give you what you ask for.  But BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU DO ASK FOR.  YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT!

10. Are you working for the mafia, and if so, will you threaten my life based on this strategy? YES/NO (don’t elaborate nor scoff)

What?  We had a really nice conversation, and left agreeing and complimenting each other, where does this kind of question come from?

I am not working for anyone.  I am a guy who got busted for cannabis 3 times as a teen.   I served 8 months in jail for simple possession.  I do not want my kids or generations in the future to have to deal with prohibition, and I want to see it end.  I will not, and I have not threatened you or anyone else.  I supported Prop19, I collected signatures for two initiatives in Washington to see cannabis prohibition end.  I support Measure 80 in Oregon, and Amendment 64 in Colorado.  Don’t play me to be some Al Capone.   Al Capone supported prohibition, and I have supported ending prohibition.  There is nothing that I and the mafia have in common.

In fact I recently made a video talking about prescription whisky in the 1920s/30s, and I have compared it to medical marijuana.   I think that prohibition is beneficial to the mafia and other organizations like the cartels in Mexico and South America.  I simply want to see prohibition end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbkQsC4Mk4&feature=plcp

Jason asks:  11. Do you agree with the advice Craig Rubin gave me two years ago? The advice is this: lawyers run the country; therefore, go to school. YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s response:  Become a lawyer?  You are asking me career advice?   I became a programmer and system administrator.  I wouldn’t become a lawyer personally.  But your tricky follow up here that is completely out of the context of the conversation that we had on the radio is a little puzzling, though as a person who wants to be a lawyer such as yourself, I can see where it would be beneficial for you to learn to blur the context with something like this smear piece you wrote about me.

I will just recommend that people listen to the interview for themselves, I answered all of your questions directly, I did not evade anything or change the topic.  I gave you all of the answers that you had time for, which was about an hour with no commercial breaks.  Im not sure why you didn’t have these questions for me that I am answering now on the radio show?

Jason asks:  12. Do you agree with me that Prop 215, and all of the other state medical marijuana laws, are not protecting patients adequately? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan’s response:   Jason I know why you don’t want me to elaborate, it is obvious that I answered your question already on the radio show.  This kind of redundant follow up question is a waste of time.  I pointed out that medical marijuana laws are not protecting people.  That is one of my main reasons for wanting cannabis unscheduled federally.

I pointed out how in Oregon after they rescheduled cannabis in their state, it did not help because it wasn’t until they rescheduled that they started seeing their dispensaries raided.  Now I realize and have said as much (even on our show), that I believe it is a good thing that at least one state has rescheduled, because it makes Federal Scheduling of cannabis completely inaccurate on top of the fact that federal prohibition is illegal.   

This blog came out before our show too:

The future of cannabis now is moving towards a federal reclassification of cannabis.

There are several petitions on the state level to “reschedule cannabis“, which indicates no class just a “rescheduling”.

Rescheduling means most likely the same thing that happened in Oregon when they called for rescheduling in 2010 via Oregon Senate Bill 728

Shortly after this decision, the very first dispensary raid in Oregon took place despite the legitimacy of cannabis being medicine in Oregon law and by the board of pharmacy.

RE:  http://stash.norml.org/wake-n-bake-lounge-raided-after-nearly-seven-months-of-openly-operating-in-aloha-4

 

Jason asks:  13. Do you agree that every example you cited so far as to “legalization working” (Breckinridge, Denver decrimming, Utah, etc) are all illegal under federal law? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan responds:  In some ways, yes.  I mean that is what the feds say, but I think that it is federal law that is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.  I recently did a show about that: 

http://xcannabis.com/2012/10/fighting-against-dumb-laws-im-letting-my-mmj-recommend-expire/

Shortly after our show last year I posted this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbOynHx6FCw&feature=plcp

Jason asks:  14. Scott Tracy Imler, one of the original authors of Prop 215, told me recently “But med mar and those it will help deserve the medical issue to be decided on its own merits — a strategy that full legalizers and hempsters vehemently opposed in the early 90?s as we ginned up the movement. ” Do you agree with both parts of this statement? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan replies: Again I see why you wouldn’t want me to elaborate but you have no problem elaborating on your points.  You would like to pit me against another activist, because you know my answer?

No I do not think medical marijuana had anything to do with the movement starting.  I have time and time again spoken about Timothy Leary and his case in 1969 that legalized cannabis.  This movement was stronger and less complacent before medical marijuana laws in my opinion.

I wrote a blog awhile back (before or interview) about how medical marijuana laws aren’t helping.

Since 1990 when there was only 20,000 marijuana possession arrests in California, there has been a 3 fold increase in marijuana possession arrests in California rising all the way up to 60,000 arrests in California in 2010.

It is also not because of population growth.  From 1990 to 2010 California only saw a 78% growth in population, yet marijuana possession arrest tripled (300% increase, making the 78% population growth difference a 222% increase in arrests, not to mention the felony arrest increases). 

How are medical laws protecting patients?

Jason commented/asked:  15. Scott Imler also said this: “And that’s what 215 was a response to. It was not designed as an end all or be all for everything “green and kind”. It was designed to protect patients and their family who were using or obtaining (growing, buying, being given, etc) marijuana for their own personal medical use or that of a family member/ friend/caregivee). It was not designed to authorize commercial operations or spawn and industry. It was designed to provide and affirmative defense in court.” Do you agree with this statement? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan replies:  I agree Prop215 laws protect people with affirmative defense.  But lots of providers are not allowed to use that in court based on federal prohibition laws.    But I have never said Prop215 was supposed to legalize cannabis, or be “a be all or end all” solution.    Where does that comment come from?  I am looking forward to FULL legalization.

Jason states/and asks:  16. Scott Imler also had this to say: “Jason. Carl’s filing is a brilliant piece of work – as usual. He has been at the struggle in Iowa as long if not longer than anyone anywhere. IMO, he is grossly under-appreciated and he seems to have outdone himself this time.” DO YOU AGREE? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)

Ryan replied: I said everything I had to say to Carl on his radio show when he had me as a guest:

Listen here:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlaVoeGtvL0

 

Final thoughts:

Can anyone tell me what in the constitution gives the federal government any right to create the Controlled Substances Act or to tell anyone what they can to can not put in their own body?  

Tell me “How can freedom exist if nature is illegal”

I think cannabis is legal but the federal government doesn’t want to admit it.

I suggest people listen to this show and read the description;

Washington and now Colorado on per se DUID limits – Just say no to new penalties!

February 28th, 2012 | By Pirate

This has always been obvious to me that a precedence would be set, or a trend would follow if one state is successful with DUID laws or proposals.   I was blogging about this last year and ever since about Washington’s I-502’s DUID limits.

Before Washington started their proposal for DUID limits, Colorado had shot down the DUID limit proposal in HB 1261.   I was hopeful that would put an end to it.  But the beat goes on with NAW (I-502) just months later.

I have to admit I was shocked that I-502 got as many signatures as they got at first, until I followed the money and found out that pretty much all of their signatures were paid for, and that most of the signature gatherers were from out of state.

From my prospective I have kept a watchful eye on which locals are participating in these proposals.   There are very few locals participating in this.

I have also begged and pleaded with everyone I know with a few bucks to spare to invest in the real deal when it comes to legalization..   Unsuccessfully though, because low and behold as it goes in America, corporations and lawyers tend to get their way.

Population demographics suggest that there are  more lawyers in the USA than anywhere in the world.
Roughly 37% of all lawyers in the world are in the USA.  (active lawyers)

That lawyers and politicians are driving these DUID laws is not surprising to me either.

I have been concerned that we the people are allowing for these additional prohibitions to enter a freedom movement.

Why not follow the Portugal model, or even the Holland model at very least?  These are systems that work well, and have been proven over decades of trial and studies.  They haven’t beefed up their DUID limits, and there are fewer problems with drugs over all, including driving than before decriminalizing/legalizing.

Why do we need new per se DUID limits, when we have functioning DUI laws already as well as Reckless driving laws?

These are the questions that I would suppose the legalization lobbyists/orgs are asking.  Are they?

This statement echos my concern:

Marijuana activist Corey Donahue, who was credited with helping to derail last year’s bill, testified again last night, declaring the measure unconstitutional. “Why are the only people supporting a bill that would essentially imprison and arrest innocent people, the same people enforcing our laws?” he asked. “And I’m just questioning this because this whole thing seems as if the state and the law enforcement officials of the state are trying to criminalize people’s conduct with no science to back it up.”   Westword

These are the references that I found to site the references above:

Leaving for California

April 13th, 2011 | By Pirate

So we are leaving for California at the end of April.  Lots of people have asked  “are you leaving because of the problems with the legalization movement”?
Come on, get real!    ROFL   There has been nothing but problems in the legalization movement.  There are many reasons for that, but I have to say that none of these “problems” are very serious.

There are a lot of people with a lot of personality, and determination and passion all of which are fighting for this cause for their own reasons.   Being that no one is really getting paid for this, and being that there is a lot riding on the outcome of this, yes there are some personality conflicts.

I think that many people are very excited to be the “boss”.  Everyone wants their shot at it.   That and the fact that there is so much money and influence in this movement presently.  The cannabis industry is just taking off, and we have lawyers scrambling to figure what exactly they are going to do when prohibition ends, who will their clientele be?  We have dispensaries who are fighting the idea of having more competition, we have lobbyists wondering what they will get paid to lobby for next, and we have police who forecast being out of a job if there are no potheads to arrest.

But the problems now are no different than the problems last year, or 30 years ago, or 50 years ago.   These are the same problems, different year.

But to those who have asked the question, no we are not leaving to avoid these problems.  However it is mighty convenient to move on to more peace and quite in the middle of the wilderness, just when all of this hit a boiling point.  LOL

We have been announcing that we are going to leave to build our house this Spring for about 6 months now.
We have been very excited about are prospects to build our hemp dome on our property.

We actually bought this property last year, and we had planned on moving to it after cannabis was legalized with I-1068.  But when I-1068 failed, we decided to move from our lake house rental in Loon Lake, to move into Spokane where the action was, and give it one more year, and one more try before we left for Cali.   We thought we’d leave sometime between when our lease ended in April to sometime in June when our daughter was done with her extra curricular activities such as ballet.
But when we started seeing certain situations present themselves to us, and when we realized we would probably serve the movement better by not arguing with people about how things should be.  We decided to move at the end of April instead of June so that we could get started on building our home.
It is pointless to argue with people most of the time, and that keeps coming around.  With the new baby coming, and with the move that we are working on, the added stress of dealing with people’s ego’s helped us make our decision.
But we sent 9 Sensible Washington shirts and a collection of signatures for I-1149 to Seattle today, and we have more to send soon.
We will continue to fight for this cause, and if we need to, we will do it again next year.  But for now, we are going to take care of some personal issues in our own life.

Peace and signatures!

~Reverend Ryan
1-888-644-3872

P.S.

This is “A Time 4 Hemp” with Casper Leitch in January where I talk with the show about our plans this summer.
So anyone who thinks they are responsible for me leaving.   LOL   Good luck!  We move around a lot and experience the world.
We’ll be back in Spokane soon enough though, we always end up back in WA after a bit of traveling.  =)

What if I-1149 fails this year?

April 6th, 2011 | By Pirate

For anyone who is interested, I have been toying with the idea that 3 months (3000 signatures per day) may not work out.

That maybe we should plan well in advance for doing this again next year. Just as a precautionary measure, you know not putting all of our apples in one basket.

I have some ideas and maybe some backing for next year if we HAVE to run this again.
I consider that the problem with this year is that there wasn’t a lot of planning last year for this. Everyone thought I-1068 was the end all be all of our efforts. Unfortunately it didn’t work out, and honestly this may not work out this year either.

So far I have come up with some info, but nothing else that is solid yet.

In my opinion I think we should put some checks and balances in place.

1. No one in a leadership role with special interests, including dispensers, growers, lobbyists or pot lawyers. (Special interests freaks contributors, and volunteers out)

2. A reliable and proven 3rd party signature count provider. (I have some good info on this)

3. A very open structure to the organization, none of this “I am coordinator, you better respect me” bull

 

I am planning for the worst, but hoping for the best.

If anyone is interested, I will be working on this idea over the next 8 months, and I will be posting my ideas accordingly on xCannabis.com.
I may not want to run or lead the campaign, but I am just kicking around ideas and posting them publicly incase someone wants to use these ideas, or maybe I will run it if no one else steps up.

But this is too serious of an issue to let the legislature take control of our rights. I would hate to see something like HB 1550 pass, and I would especially hate for SB 5073 to pass!!!

 

 

Here is a resource that I am using, and I have others that I am investigating now.

Just FYI:

This is a group that people may want to look into for running successful citizens initiatives. Help on many levels, including info for professional independent petition counts>

Citizens in Charge Foundation
2050 Old Bridge Road Suite 103
Lake Ridge, VA 22192
Phone: (703) 492-1776
Fax: (703) 910-7728
Email: info@citizensincharge.org
www.citizensincharge.org

 

Thanks for being concerned about your freedom, and DOING SOMETHING about it!

 

Sincerely,

Ryan Thompson

www.xCannabis.com

1-888-644-3872

The law that I got changed, in Springville City Utah

October 8th, 2010 | By Pirate

It cost me a camera, a few hours in jail and the cost of hiring two separate lawyers, but I did it.  I got my first law changed.

 

I got arrested for this law on 6/12/2010, the only person in existence to get nailed with this “crime” of free speech in Springville.

 

Now I have proof that this law has been change, because on 7/20/2010 the City Council changed this un-American ordinance.

 

11. Consideration to amend ordinance on issuing Permits for public protesting –
John Penrod, City Attorney
Attorney Penrod informed the Council that a situation during Art City Days brought
attention to a need to change the language on Section 8-4-108 of Springville City Code. The
City requires a written permit from the Council for congregating on streets or sidewalks. If a
person or group wants to assemble it is unlawful to obstruct or interfere with free passage of
persons or business. Additionally, the person or group must go through a process to receive
written permission and be issued a permit from the Council. The last such permit was issued in
2001 and Attorney Penrod could not find record of another. There is always a concern for public
safety and order in the community, so blocking or obstructing people and business is not
allowed. The process of obtaining a permit from the Council is the issue. If the permit process is
too lengthy, it infringes on the freedom to protest, and according to case law thirty-days is too
long. When comparing case law to the process in Springville City, it may take too long for
someone to receive approval since Council meetings are held twice a month. Other Springville
City ordinances requiring a permit appear to be more flexible. Examples are given in the staff
report of Provo City’s decision not to require a permit. Parades and protesters follow certain laws
for public safety and order in the community. There is a process for special events approval
through the Public Safety, Buildings and Grounds, and Administration departments before
shutting down streets for events such as a parade. Enough protections already exist so that
requiring a permit from the Council can be removed from the language of the ordinance.
Mayor Clyde agreed that a permit would only state what is required or allowed, so a
permit shouldn’t require Council approval. Attorney Penrod remarked that the requirements
could be put in a policy, for example a group of five may not need a permit. The difference
would be if the group was impeding traffic flow. Mayor Clyde asked if a group congregating in a
City park would need a permit. Attorney Penrod answered that the number of people constituting
a group is not specified, but when large groups are using the area in a City park for a specific
period of time they are required to rent a pavilion. The City must be content neutral when
defining what is allowed. There is a difference between using a City park lawfully or doing
something that is not lawfully allowed. Administrator Fitzgerald interjected that the City is
generally approached when something happens in a location that isn’t normally seen, such as
closing a road or when additional toilet facilities are required. Attorney Penrod noted that the
requirement to obtain a permit in writing from the Council is in the last sentence of the
ordinance. Eliminating that sentence will not diminish the City’s ability to maintain order
because of the other provisions already in place, but simply removes the requirement to come
before the Council for approval of a permit.
CL. JOLLEY MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #12-2010 AMENDING
SECTION 8-4-108 OF THE SPRINGVILLE CITY CODE. CL. BIRD SECONDED THE
MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. CL. STRONG – YES, CL BIRD – YES, CL.
JOLLEY – YES, CL. OLSEN – YES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Springville City Council Minutes 7/20/2010

or

http://springville.org/agendasminutes/cc/2010/cc_minutes_2010_07_20.pdf

 

 

 

<Photo 1>